Wedding togs - what would you do; a question of lenses.

jammy_c

jammy_c

Suspended / Banned
Messages
991
Name
James
Edit My Images
Yes
So.... I've been gearing up to shoot weddings and have invested in some more serious gear (5d mkii and 1ds mki) and sold all my old gear.
Along with the kit I've bought is a 24-70mm f2.8 which I feel will be my strongest tool on wedding days. There is also a 70-200 f4 and a 100mm f2.8 macro (all are USM L lenses).
I really don't know how much use the 100mm will get when shooting a wedding. I know it's a massively capable lens, but is the focal length too restrictive for weddings? I have other lenses for candids from a distance.
I'm thinking of selling it and using the funds to buy a Sigma f1.4 50mm and a fisheye (probably a samyang 14mm or 12mm f2.8).
Is this a good idea? I'd be interested know what other wedding photographers think. I love the 100mm but think it's crop is too tight for weddings and I would think ever use the macro capabilities. Hmm.....
Maybe other suggestions too? (Around the £500 mark absolute max)
 
I carry a 90mm Macro for the rings. I use it for nothing else.

But no one can tell you what focal lengths are right for you, there's more than one way to skin a cat. I will just say: redundancy.

What will you use when the 24-70 breaks? Or the 70-200?
As long as you have a plan, you have nothing to worry about.
 
I also have a 24-105 f4, but didn't think about mentioning that as it would be used by my other half acting as a second shooter.
 
jammy_c said:
I also have a 24-105 f4, but didn't think about mentioning that as it would be used by my other half acting as a second shooter.
Click to expand...
So you'll send her home if a lens breaks?
 
I can't speak for anyone else and I know the general rule of thumb seems to be to take less gear not more but I am a bit pedantic about ensuring a back up so for every wedding we take:

35mm f/1.4
85mm f/1.4
90mm Macro

These 3 pretty much cover everything with the macro only really being used for the ring shots and these are what we use probably 99.9% of the time.

We also however take:

24-70 f/2.8
70-200 f/2.8
45mm f/2.8 PC-E

These offer a backup to the other lenses but also for example we would occasionally use the 70-200 when needing something a little longer.

We also take 2 x flashguns, 2x Lencarta Atom 180's very handy for when the weather is poor and we have to shoot inside and a I also always have a bag with a load of cheap yongnuo flash's and triggers as a backup for these plus stands, reflectors etc.

In terms of camera bodies we have 4 full frame bodies with us 2 to shoot with and another 2 as a back up.

Yes of course its absolute overkill really and less than half the gear generally gets used but it keeps me sane (have had high end equipment fail while working before) and it's no big hassle really as everything is split up into different bags based on the set up and what we don't need stays in the van. To be fair though if we only did weddings I wouldn't have that amount of gear so would take less but as we have them for the other work we do it seems silly to not bring it.

I also have a couple of other lenses like a 50mm for example which does stay at home as never gets used. After having bought and tried pretty much every 50mm going have eventually come to the conclusion that it's just not a focal length I get on with.
 
f/2.8 said:
I can't speak for anyone else and I know the general rule of thumb seems to be to take less gear not more but I am a bit pedantic about ensuring a back up so for every wedding we take:

35mm f/1.4
85mm f/1.4
90mm Macro

These 3 pretty much cover everything with the macro only really being used for the ring shots and these are what we use probably 99.9% of the time.

We also however take:

24-70 f/2.8
70-200 f/2.8
45mm f/2.8 PC-E

These offer a backup to the other lenses but also for example we would occasionally use the 70-200 when needing something a little longer.

We also take 2 x flashguns, 2x Lencarta Atom 180's very handy for when the weather is poor and we have to shoot inside and a I also always have a bag with a load of cheap yongnuo flash's and triggers as a backup for these plus stands, reflectors etc.

In terms of camera bodies we have 4 full frame bodies with us 2 to shoot with and another 2 as a back up.

Yes of course its absolute overkill really and less than half the gear generally gets used but it keeps me sane (have had high end equipment fail while working before) and it's no big hassle really as everything is split up into different bags based on the set up and what we don't need stays in the van. To be fair though if we only did weddings I wouldn't have that amount of gear so would take less but as we have them for the other work we do it seems silly to not bring it.

I also have a couple of other lenses like a 50mm for example which does stay at home as never gets used. After having bought and tried pretty much every 50mm going have eventually come to the conclusion that it's just not a focal length I get on with.
Click to expand...

A good insight :)
We also have 3 X 550EX speed lites and wireless commander, a pair of 5D mkii's (one each) and a 1ds mki so hopefully enough redundancy incase of a failure. Because I don't have a crazy amount of lenses I would take everything along.
Out of interest, what was your favourite 50mm? Which did you end up with?
 
Being a DX user my main lenses by far now are my 17-55 and an 85, but I also get some use out of my 50

The 85 gets me far more shots than my 70-200 ever did

I sold my macro years ago as no-one cared about ring shots (cheesy old crap of a shot for me anyway so glad to drop it)

I had a fisheye once-upon-a-time - sold that too - pointless quirkiness

Dave
 
jammy_c said:
A good insight :)
We also have 3 X 550EX speed lites and wireless commander, a pair of 5D mkii's (one each) and a 1ds mki so hopefully enough redundancy incase of a failure. Because I don't have a crazy amount of lenses I would take everything along.
Out of interest, what was your favourite 50mm? Which did you end up with?
Click to expand...

Have the Sigma Art at the moment but thinking of selling it on it's excellent, but very rarely gets used.
 
f/2.8 said:
Have the Sigma Art at the moment but thinking of selling it on it's excellent, but very rarely gets used.
Click to expand...
How much would you want for it? I imagine the Art would be out of my budget.
 
jammy_c said:
How much would you want for it? I imagine the Art would be out of my budget.
Click to expand...


No idea tbh will need to have a look at what they go for then might out it on here for sale. It's Nikon fit anyway from your opening post it sounded like you shoot Canon.
 
f/2.8 said:
No idea tbh will need to have a look at what they go for then might out it on here for sale. It's Nikon fit anyway from your opening post it sounded like you shoot Canon.
Click to expand...
Ah, no worries. Yes I'm Canon.
 
Short answer based on 400+ weddings over ten years, during which time we went from schlepping round enough kit to open a small camera shop with to just enough to do the job efficiently ...

1. When I used to take the 100/2.8 macro to weddings, it only ever got used for ring shots. Then the penny dropped. Ring shots are mainly a photographer thing. They're actually only of interest to some brides, and even then they're rarely a must-have. When we simply stopped doing them, nobody seemed to notice.

2. Every time a wedding photographer uses a fisheye lens at a wedding, a little fluffy kitten dies an agonising death.

jammy_c said:
... I have other lenses for candids from a distance ...
Click to expand...
The day you adjust your brain to stop thinking of any relationship between "candid" and "distance" is the day your people pictures will start improving no end.

Sniping is a cop-out.
 
Last edited:
Just to add my 2p

I predominantly use a 85mm 1.2L, 35mm 1.4L and 24-70 2.8L for 95% of my shots. For the rest are I have a 17-40 f4L (which I'm hoping to upgrade to the 16-35 at some point soon), a 70-200 2.8L and the good old 50mm 1.4.
Generally I walk around with 2 of the first 3 on 2 5dmk3 bodies and have some of the others in lens pouches on my belt. Ok, maybe not the 70-200 all the time - gets a bit heavy!
I really would look at getting the biggest apertures you can get as weddings get dark
 
Last edited:
Serendipitous Sid said:
Every time a wedding photographer uses a fisheye lens at a wedding, a little fluffy kitten dies an agonising death.
Click to expand...
Not *every* time.

I know a wedding photographer round here who used one to great effect once when he knew there was going to be a bouncy castle at the reception. He went on it with the bride and groom, and got some super photos of them with the fisheye. No other lens would done the job.

(Though I think he would want me to stress that he hired it from us for exactly that purpose and *only* that purpose.)
 
Serendipitous Sid said:
Short answer based on 400+ weddings over ten years, during which time we went from schlepping round enough kit to open a small camera shop with to just enough to do the job efficiently ...

1. When I used to take the 100/2.8 macro to weddings, it only ever got used for ring shots. Then the penny dropped. Ring shots are mainly a photographer thing. They're actually only of interest to some brides, and even then they're rarely a must-have. When we simply stopped doing them, nobody seemed to notice.

2. Every time a wedding photographer uses a fisheye lens at a wedding, a little fluffy kitten dies an agonising death.

The day you adjust your brain to stop thinking of any relationship between "candid" and "distance" is the day your people pictures will start improving no end.

Sniping is a cop-out.
Click to expand...

1. Good point, that's pretty much as I expected people might say so helps me make my mind up that a 50mm 1.4 would be more versatile.

2. Lol. I probably should have said i intend to us a fisheye for wide angle shots of venues and elevated shots at receptions primarily, and possibly group shots which may then be lens-corrected in lightroom.

I understand what you are saying about the difference between distance and candid, but nethertheless you can't capture a completely natural moment without them even realising when you are in their face with a 35mm prime, there must be a compromise somewhere. So surely a longer FL will allow for more natural shots?
 
Weetobix said:
Just to add my 2p

I predominantly use a 85mm 1.2L, 35mm 1.4L and 24-70 2.8L for 95% of my shots. For the rest are I have a 17-40 f4L (which I'm hoping to upgrade to the 16-35 at some point soon), a 70-200 2.8L and the good old 50mm 1.4.
Generally I walk around with 2 of the first 3 on 2 5dmk3 bodies and have some of the others in lens pouches on my belt. Ok, maybe not the 70-200 all the time - gets a bit heavy!
I really would look at getting the biggest apertures you can get as weddings get dark
Click to expand...
This helps me make my mind up further that a 50mm f1.4 would be more beneficial than the 100mm f2.8. The light in some of the churches we have attended has been virtually non existent, let alone the receptions.

Maybe a 50mm 1.4 and a shorter FL prime (maybe a 35mm) would be the answer instead of a fisheye. We could each have one in our bags that way.
 
just to mix things up, I was the worlds biggest fan of the 50mm focal length until I bought a 35mm 1.4 sigma art, within days the 50mm had gone and it made me realise that (for me)50mm is that inbetween length where its not really long enough for portraits but too long for some venues during the service.
I have the 100mm L macro and use it for the usual macro stuff and for alot of portraits eg- at yesterdays weddings the 1st thing I shot was the rings when I was with the men in the morning and I then went on to do every single shot of the men all with the 100mm still attached, its a stunning portrait len.I also use it for tight Bridal head shots. And this from someone who has an 85mm 1.4 and 70-200 2.8 also in the bag.
 
Last edited:
jammy_c said:
... should have said i intend to us a fisheye ... possibly group shots which may then be lens-corrected in lightroom.
Click to expand...

Fine by me if that makes you happy - but we've done groups indoors at weddings in rooms smaller than you'd probably believe and never needed wider than 24mm on a 1DMkIII (1.3 "crop factor") ...

jammy_c said:
... you can't capture a completely natural moment without them even realising when you are in their face with a 35mm prime ...
Click to expand...
Oh yes you can.

jammy_c said:
... surely a longer FL will allow for more natural shots?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. As I never tire of saying, if there's one thing guaranteed to unsettle guests at a wedding, it's a snapper hovering on the periphery sniping with a long lens who thinks nobody's noticing him. Capturing natural moments isn't down to focal length. It's all about observation, reactions, timing, understanding people, confidence, personality, experience, total familiarity with your gear and probably a few more things too if I could be arsed to think about it.

But hey, I freely admit that when we started weddings, I made the same mistake and laboured under the same delusion as your good self ... :)

Incidentally, one of the many weird things about weddings is that a snapper can go home from one convinced that in their efforts to get "the shot" they ended up being a bit too intrusive, and in due course get a nice thank you from the couple in which they remark on how inconspicuous their snapper was.
 
Last edited:
Serendipitous Sid said:
Fine by me if that makes you happy - but we've done groups indoors at weddings in rooms smaller than you'd probably believe and never needed wider than 24mm on a 1DMkIII (1.3 "crop factor") ...

Oh yes you can.

Not necessarily. As I never tire of saying, if there's one thing guaranteed to unsettle guests at a wedding, it's a snapper hovering on the periphery sniping with a long lens who thinks nobody's noticing him. Capturing natural moments isn't down to focal length. It's all about observation, reactions, timing, understanding people, confidence, personality, experience, total familiarity with your gear and probably a few more things too if I could be arsed to think about it.

But hey, I freely admit that when we started weddings, I made the same mistake and laboured under the same delusion as your good self ... :)

Incidentally, one of the many weird things about weddings is that a snapper can go home from one convinced that in their efforts to get "the shot" they ended up being a bit too intrusive, and in due course get a nice thank you from the couple in which they remark on how inconspicuous their snapper was.
Click to expand...
This is all good stuff, Sid. :)
How do you personally go about getting a perfect candid shot? Are you saying being occasionally conspicuous with a shorter FL is less intrusive than lingering and prolonged "sniping"? Maybe that makes to a degree; people see you ready to shoot, you take the shot, then move along and they relax again without a tog loitering behind them for 10 mins.
 
jammy_c said:
Are you saying being occasionally conspicuous with a shorter FL is less intrusive than lingering and prolonged "sniping"? Maybe that makes to a degree; people see you ready to shoot, you take the shot, then move along and they relax again without a tog loitering behind them for 10 mins.
Click to expand...

In a word, yes. Here's a few random thoughts to ponder on ...

You don't need to be inconspicuous in order to avoid unsettling people at a wedding or annoying them. I'm 6ft 2in, I'm bald, I always wore black and I usually had two bloody big cameras hanging off me plus lens pouches on my belt.

It's impossible to properly explain how we worked, but the fundamentals are smile lots, work very quickly, don't loiter in one place for more than a few seconds, don't keep looking at the person you're aiming for next, don't raise the camera to your eye until you've got the shot in your head, and constant observation.

You want to be able to automatically tune in to people and immediately sense if they're up for you snapping them. If you don't find that easy, you need more practice.

The couple has paid you a lot of money to be there and take pictures, and guests attending weddings expect whoever looks like being The Photographer to be taking pictures.

Most people at a wedding nowadays are well used to everybody pointing their phones at everybody else. You're different though because (a) they don't know you and (b) your camera is big and black. But as long as you don't make a big deal of taking a picture of them, that's the only difference.

There will always be somebody at a wedding who has a problem with being photographed. That will be obvious to you and you ought to respect it. Occasionally though you'll get a bride who specifically asks for a snap of somebody who's notoriously camera-shy. How you deal with that's up to you.

Don't photograph people eating, and be wary of photographing them knocking back the booze. You want happy smiling people with a glass in their hand, not pouring the contents down their throat.

And as always with wedding snappery, the finer points depend on the nature of the wedding. Doing candids at the one where the groom and his mates turn out in shiny light grey hire suits and cravats complete with "silver"-topped canes will be harder work than one where most of the blokes are wearing their own morning coats and the bride's dad owns half the county ;)

HTH a bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top